Not that I am expecting any sensible replies, but just for a good laugh:

1. Do all the little children and babies who die young think themselves dead?
If they do, then how?
If they don't, and if they died because of their karma from past lives, then what's the point of LoA when everything is pre-determined?

2. How come when something works it's credit to the Great Universe, and when something goes wrong it's my fault?

3. If the universe is really so keen to give us what we wanted, why go about it in a such a secret, strange and roundabout way? Why give us the ability to think but make it so difficult to control what we think? Why make it so easy to think negative thoughts but so difficult to think positive thoughts?

4. So the universe is so damn clever, it can make things happen in ways no human can think of - yet it is so dumb that if I think 'I DON'T want that', it hears 'I WANT that' and apparently will give me exactly THAT. Perhaps the universe should pray everyday with lots of gratitude that it gets the ability to interpret our thoughts properly and get its hearing fixed before it tries to fix us, don't you think?
Now that's an interesting thought. Do you think the universe will be able to attract what it asks for, in this case a faculty for comprehension that is fit for purpose?

5. Allegedly, we were created by The Supreme Intelligence of the universe. Yet, quite how such an accomplished creator has managed to produce such flawed creatures (i.e., us) is beyond comprehension. Oh wait, I am supposed to suspend my logical mind when talking about universe - aren't I? See? The Great Universe apparently gave us our logical mind, but when we talk about The Venerable One, we must not use logic - only faith is allowed, none of this logical and deductive hanky-panky.

bf2 wrote:
1. Do all the little children and babies who die young think themselves dead?
If they do, then how?
If they don't, and if they died because of their karma from past lives, then what's the point of LoA when everything is pre-determined?

You post on this forum because you sense that you have "free will". Whether from a great perspective it is not free is immaterial - you can only go on what you experience.

bf2 wrote:2. How come when something works it's credit to the Great Universe, and when something goes wrong it's my fault?

Who says ?

bf2 wrote:3. If the universe is really so keen to give us what we wanted, why go about it in a such a secret, strange and roundabout way? Why give us the ability to think but make it so difficult to control what we think? Why make it so easy to think negative thoughts but so difficult to think positive thoughts?

Can you specify what degree of difficulty you would like the universe to give you !!

Actually things are quite easy, if you have intelligence. In this era you can buy from amazon books covering all the main paths. You just have to start working and you arrive.

bf2 wrote:4. So the universe is so damn clever, it can make things happen in ways no human can think of - yet it is so dumb that if I think 'I DON'T want that', it hears 'I WANT that' and apparently will give me exactly THAT. Perhaps the universe should pray everyday with lots of gratitude that it gets the ability to interpret our thoughts properly and get its hearing fixed before it tries to fix us, don't you think?
Now that's an interesting thought. Do you think the universe will be able to attract what it asks for, in this case a faculty for comprehension that is fit for purpose?

If things were 'easy' as you describe you wouldn't exist. Your "existence" is a temporary miracle.

You don't realise the value of it because you are ignorant of your true state. And even though your life doesn't work you enjoy moaning so much you don't look for the answer. In other words you are an idiot. Like the rest of us.

bf2 wrote:5. Allegedly, we were created by The Supreme Intelligence of the universe. Yet, quite how such an accomplished creator has managed to produce such flawed creatures (i.e., us) is beyond comprehension. Oh wait, I am supposed to suspend my logical mind when talking about universe - aren't I? See? The Great Universe apparently gave us our logical mind, but when we talk about The Venerable One, we must not use logic - only faith is allowed, none of this logical and deductive hanky-panky.

Is you "logical mind" the one that enjoys moaning and not exploring. Perhaps you are not worth saving ?

The universe has enough lazy layabouts moaning all the time - no better than scattered dust.

Are you worth saving ?

Are you worth anything ?

Prove it.

I was proud, and I demanded the finest teacher
.. .. and when he appeared
.. .. .. .. I was so small

bf2, it sounds to me like you feel you are being asked to believe something, but you see many conflicts and contradictions in the belief.

So I would say take a step backward and see if you really need to believe the universe works in any particular way. If the objective is the to be a free and natural human being, I have not found it necessary to believe or reject any particular thing. Science gives us a version of the way the universe works; LOA gives us another version; the concept of karma gives yet a different one; and there are of course many spiritual versions of how the universe works.

There is no requirement to believe or reject any of these.

I don't know if dead babies think themselves dead (but it's a very interesting philosophical question); I don't think there is any such thing as karma, where people beleive there is some sort of universal record-keeping. I think people are affected by delusion or they are not; that's karma. I don't know much about LOA; and haven't found a belief in it necessary to evolve. It has not been my exprience that "like attracts like." I don't think everything is pre-determined--but it could be. I agree with you that the LOA and similar ideas sometimes serve to create angst in people--and yes some of the angst which comes up is downright silly such as when people are afraid to think particular things; but of course that can be said of many belief systems. Faith is silly. The logical mind does not have to be dismissed.

karmarider wrote:bf2, it sounds to me like you feel you are being asked to believe something, but you see many conflicts and contradictions in the belief.

So I would say take a step backward and see if you really need to believe the universe works in any particular way. If the objective is the to be a free and natural human being, I have not found it necessary to believe or reject any particular thing. Science gives us a version of the way the universe works; LOA gives us another version; the concept of karma gives yet a different one; and there are of course many spiritual versions of how the universe works.

There is no requirement to believe or reject any of these.

I don't know if dead babies think themselves dead (but it's a very interesting philosophical question); I don't think there is any such thing as karma, where people beleive there is some sort of universal record-keeping. I think people are affected by delusion or they are not; that's karma. I don't know much about LOA; and haven't found a belief in it necessary to evolve. It has not been my exprience that "like attracts like." I don't think everything is pre-determined--but it could be. I agree with you that the LOA and similar ideas sometimes serve to create angst in people--and yes some of the angst which comes up is downright silly such as when people are afraid to think particular things; but of course that can be said of many belief systems. Faith is silly. The logical mind does not have to be dismissed.

Wow, an intelligent and thoughtful reply!
In this forum!
You don't belong here my friend - you clearly can think for yourself.

I will try answer, but this is only practice and entertainment. I answer not from authority!

1. Do all the little children and babies who die young think themselves dead?
If they do, then how?
If they don't, and if they died because of their karma from past lives, then what's the point of LoA when everything is pre-determined?

Law of attraction states thinking is only a means to change your resonance. It is your resonance that attracts your circumstance, not your thinking. Therefore, it is entirely conceivable that past lives worth of resonance is the cause of many people dieing horrible circumstances before earning enough thoughts to deserve it in their current life. Whilst I don't know if I believe this, I do think it is consistent with LoA theory.

There is also another legal, technical way getting around this that doesn't invoke past lives. Eckhart Tolle once said consciousness is playing a game of pretending to be humans. Awakening only occurs once this "game" gets too complicated and unsustainable / unbearable. Awakening is a side issue - the point is that consciousness is in it to experience all the manner of things possible. All things include not just the flowery and nice, it includes the horrible. The universe is universally interested in experience.

In other words, you signed up for this experience. You may not remember it, but you did. I'm guessing the part where you are essentially beyond mortality made you overconfident - from the outset of creation, you would have viewed all experience as trivial as a dream. Ie, Unreal.

If you live in a universe where you suffer tremendously, then necessarily this has been something you wanted on some level. That you're experiencing it doesn't prove the universe is not bound by the Law of Attraction. Please note: it is not called "The Law of Fair and Just Attraction". Its called the Law of Attraction.

2. How come when something works it's credit to the Great Universe, and when something goes wrong it's my fault?

I think this is a straw man argument. LoA theory states it is your efforts (or focus) via resonance that gives you what you want. If you DID get what you wanted, its equally your fault that you did.

3. If the universe is really so keen to give us what we wanted, why go about it in a such a secret, strange and roundabout way?

a) Not getting what you want gives you the background contrast - like how white chalk needs a black board to write upon. Desire needs context.
b) Consciousness, at the outset of creation of the universe, wanted to experience what its like not getting what it wants. It also wanted to experience the struggle of learning how to get what it wants from scratch. This is just the fulfillment of desire.

Why give us the ability to think but make it so difficult to control what we think? Why make it so easy to think negative thoughts but so difficult to think positive thoughts?

The universe is primarily in it for experience. Making it hard is all part of the game you signed up for. The difficulty is merely the fulfillment of the Law of Attraction - you made those rules when you signed up for it.

Additionally, the default negativity and difficulty inherent in our consciousness is part of the ultimate desire: awakening. Negativity and compulsive thinking are the motivation for waking up.

4. So the universe is so damn clever, it can make things happen in ways no human can think of - yet it is so dumb that if I think 'I DON'T want that', it hears 'I WANT that' and apparently will give me exactly THAT. Perhaps the universe should pray everyday with lots of gratitude that it gets the ability to interpret our thoughts properly and get its hearing fixed before it tries to fix us, don't you think?
Now that's an interesting thought. Do you think the universe will be able to attract what it asks for, in this case a faculty for comprehension that is fit for purpose?

The universe is intelligent, not sentient. There is a big difference between the two. You are suggesting something that LoA theory does not - that the universe is sentient. Nowhere does it state that.
Since the universe is not sentient (but IS intelligent), it has to obey the laws - namely the Law of Attraction.

You might argue that Abraham is sentient - I don't know if thats the case. Abraham may be commandeering sentient consciousness (Hicks), and so appear sentient, but that doesn't make him inherently sentient. Besides, he's already said many times he's just a bystander.

5. Allegedly, we were created by The Supreme Intelligence of the universe. Yet, quite how such an accomplished creator has managed to produce such flawed creatures (i.e., us) is beyond comprehension. Oh wait, I am supposed to suspend my logical mind when talking about universe - aren't I? See? The Great Universe apparently gave us our logical mind, but when we talk about The Venerable One, we must not use logic - only faith is allowed, none of this logical and deductive hanky-panky.

Being a flawed creature is entirely consistent if you consider that you are actually consciousness, which is beyond any harm by nature, and that you signed up to experience the illusion of being a separate entity that suffers.
Again, if LoA is right, then you must have desired this in some way in the first place. Being a flawed creature only looks illogical because you are taking a limited perspective as a separate mortal agent (ie, ego).

I have wasted far too much of my life discussing stuff with phoney spiritualists, bullshitters and people who don't understand jack, but spout off things they have read in books written by gurus. So I get a shock when I come across someone who actually can think.

TruthWithin wrote:I will try answer, but this is only practice and entertainment. I answer not from authority!

I would second the others here, and say your repsonses are nicely laid out.

I think to say that what we are--what you call resonance--influences our experience of life, is a reasonable hypothesis. And to say that we can use our emotions as guides is also very reasonable. Both of these match my experience of life.

But the rest of the theory of LOA--well, it requires axiomatic beliefs. It isn't different from any other belief system. But for me it feels like a mental contraption of beliefs rather than the actual experience of being human. To accept the LOA is to accept a lot of assumptions, such as the universe is not sentient, the universe is intelligent, you are consciousness, yet you are the volitional individuated consciousness which decided to have the human life you have before you had the human life, and so on.

And it's always bothered me about the LOA that it says that the starving five year old in Darfur attracted the suffering to himself--but I recognize that this is an emotional reaction and doesn't say anything about the truth or falsity of the loa.

Now, I'm not trying to start an argument. I know very little about the LOA. But it's a belief system. That's not a terrible thing. It's a bit dangerous in that it can be misleading. But then there are beliefs systems which are much more misleading--the whole non-dual theorizing which is supposedly about giving up assumptions is very much about taking on unexamined axioms about the qualities of consicousness and how universe works and so on. The loa is not different any of these other spiritual belief systems.

So this is not a diatribe against the LOA. But for me, the first hypothesis pretty much negates the rest of it. The first thing is that our experience of life is influenced by our inner resonance. That makes sense. And if that is true, then logically the first thing to do is awaken, that is free ourselves of inner resistance, of fear, of the idea that there is something wrong with our life, so that we can be free and natural. In fact we coudl say that awakening is prescribed by the loa by the the ideas around "alignment with Source" and inner resonance and so on.

And in my experience, awakening does not require believing. Or unbelieving. Which makes the rest of LOA, and really all of spirituality, well, irrelevant. As far as awakening goes.

Of course we're free to explore whatever we want to explore. That's the fun part of being human.

I know very little about the LOA.
But it's a belief system.
That's not a terrible thing.
It's a bit dangerous in that it can be misleading.
But then there are beliefs systems which are much more misleading-
-the whole non-dual theorizing which is supposedly about giving up assumptions is very much about taking on unexamined axioms about the qualities of consicousness and how universe works and so on.
The loa is not different any of these other spiritual belief systems.

Calm man, I'm not making an 'argument' of this either, if I may, can I play devil's advocate here -

I know very little about the LOA.
But it's a belief system.

If you know very little about it how can you know it's a belief system?

And in my experience, awakening does not require believing.

How can you know it's not just an awakening experience for some?

That's not a terrible thing.
It's a bit dangerous in that it can be misleading.

Is misleading a terrible thing? Is dangerous a terrible thing?

Do you understand 'terrible' is an arising flow of energy interpreted in judgement of a thing that causes one to feel terror physically and psychologically through interpretation of stimuli, and that terror is an extreme response of fear, and fear is a response of judgement of a thing.
- that in itself is merely a naturally occurring consequence of the judging something outside of oneself without all of the information of the first person perspective.
In a sense, what you emit you attract as a natural consequence (hmm.... )

But then there are beliefs systems which are much more misleading-
Maybe even the belief that beliefs are a 'bad' thing.

The first thing is that our experience of life is influenced by our inner resonance. That makes sense. And if that is true, then logically the first thing to do is awaken, that is free ourselves of inner resistance, of fear, of the idea that there is something wrong with our life, so that we can be free and natural.

In fact we could say that awakening is prescribed by the loa by the the ideas around "alignment with Source" and inner resonance and so on.

And it's always bothered me about the LOA that it says that the starving five year old in Darfur attracted the suffering to himself--but I recognize that this is an emotional reaction and doesn't say anything about the truth or falsity of the loa.

If the starving five year old in Darfur knew that you were spending your energy on resisting either the loa or your emotional reaction to the fact that they are still starving...
...that the majority of human beings choose to view their situation in judgement of its awfulness while ignoring the realities of what is possible in actual response if love and compassion were more widely expressed rather than fear and separation.

What if the point of you knowing about the starving five year old in Darfur was to awaken compassion and response ability that is really possible, rather than making an obstacle or enemy of the situation making it too big and too distant to actually do anything about it, and the wider spiritual implications of choosing love and compassion instead of fear and separation?

A friend on the weekend told me a tale about a man who totally believed in God as an entity that governed the whole shebang but could not swim and he fell in the river. He prayed out loud, saying ""God save me from this terrible fate". Along came a boat and the people inside it offered to help him into the boat. He said "thank you, it's okay I have faith, God will save me." The people in the boat respected his decision and left. Again he cried out, "God, don't forsake me, I am a faith-ful servant, save me from this fate". Along came another boat, again he refused this time stating that he needed to prove his faithfulness to the God of all things. So he drowned.
Went to his Heaven and there met God.
He said God, why didn't you save me?
God said: I sent you two boats. The choice to get in them or not was yours.

Is it awakened consciousness to blame 'spiritual beliefs' or unmanifested energies, or our beliefs or not in things based on our perceptions of validity for our ACTUAL choices in life?

Of course we're free to explore whatever we want to explore. That's the fun part of being human.

Yes we are. I recently heard Neale Donald Walsch explain 'free will' as merely the notion
"I would not presume to answer for you."

Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen

And it's always bothered me about the LOA that it says that the starving five year old in Darfur attracted the suffering to himself--but I recognize that this is an emotional reaction and doesn't say anything about the truth or falsity of the loa.

The starving five year old and her relationship to LoA simply cannot be understood from the human perspective. There is far to much egoic judgment and resistance to make sense of it. And the rejection of a spiritual perspective through which to consider greater possibilities leaves little chance of seeing such matters with any degree of clarity. There is a conscious reality where it makes perfect sense and serves an ultimate good.

There is a conscious reality where it makes perfect sense and serves an ultimate good.

Forgive me WW, I would tend more to say -
There is a conscious reality where it makes perfect sense.

The rest is unnecessary.

It is what it is by the factors contributing to it.

To suggest it serves anything except what it is, is .. a perspective, based on whatever nuance of judgement one seeks to define or explain it by.

It just is, because it is.

That it can be noticed as such within conscious awareness can be done right here, right now, by perspective of awareness as a direct natural consequence of choices made globally and yet attributed relatively in that expression of experience 'locally'.

There need be no hoo haa of some starving while others gorge themselves, of some fossicking through the 'rubbish' that others have thrown away for a different 'valuing' of food and resources.

Such notions of 'greater good' resolves the very real, physical response ability (ability to respond) of other human beings in carving up the resources of this world, that in truth are enough to feed all those who walk upon it.

Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen